This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the impugned order 05.09.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkarnagar in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2007. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 5 and the learned AGA and perused the impugned order. 3. It appears that the applicant Ghan Shyam 2 was convicted and sentenced under sections g 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Ambedkar nagar vide the judgment and order dated 11.10.2007 rendered in Criminal D Case No. 340 of 1999. The applicant preferreda criminal appeal questioning the order of conviction and sentence but the learned Ad­ditional Sessions Judge, Ambedkarnagar in­stead of dismissing the appeal on merit, dis­missed the same in default of the applicant on 05.09.2008. The dismissal order is being reproduced as follows:- "Case called out.Appellant absent. Today case fixed for argument. Appellant neither present nor move an ad­journment application. Exemption application moved by appel­lant but none is present to press,hence rejected. Call repeated It is 3.30 p.m. Order Appeal is dismissed on default of appel­lant. Sent back to concerned lower Court within 15 days to comply with the sentence order against accused. File be consigned." 4. Dismissal of a criminal appeal in de­fault of the appellant is not recognized in the criminal jurisprudence. If any criminal appeal is entertained for hearing and is not dismissed summarily under section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code") at the stage of admission, the appellate court has to follow the procedure prescribed under sec­tions 385 and 386 of the Code for hearing and disposal of the appeal. An opportunity of hearing to the appellant as well as to the State is necessary. In case the appellant, despite the opportunity given, fails to appear on the date fixed for hearing, the appellate court cannot dismiss the appeal in default of the appellant and is bound to peruse the record and the judgement and order appealed against on merit and pass appropriate order on the basis of the materials on record. In appropriate cases the appellate court may consider to ap­point an Amicus Curie to represent the ap­pellant and to assist the court, specially when, the appellant is in jail and is not represented by an Advocate. 5. In appropriate cases the appellate court may consider to ap­point an Amicus Curie to represent the ap­pellant and to assist the court, specially when, the appellant is in jail and is not represented by an Advocate. 5. The aforesaid proposition has been propounded by the Apex Court in various deci­sions and some of them are Bani Singh & others v. State of U.P. [ 1996 (4) SCC 720 ] : (1996 All LJ 1399) and Dharampal & others v. State of U.P. [ AIR 2008 SC 920 ] : (2008 (1)ALJ721.) 6. In Bani Singh's case (supra), a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court while over­ruling the case of Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1987 SC 1500 ] laid down the following principles:- "14. We have carefully considered the view expressed in the said two decisions of this Court and, we may state that the view taken in Shyam Dec's case appears to be sound ex­cept for a minor clarification which we con­sider necessary to mention. The plain lan­guage of Section 385 makes it clear that if the Appellate Court does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it 'must' call for the record and Section 386 mandates that after the record is received, the Appel­late Court may dispose of the appeal after hearing the accused or his counsel. Therefore, the plain language of Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for nonprosecution simplicitor. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the rea­soning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the trial court are con­sistent with the material on record. The law, therefore, does not envisage the dismissal of the appeal for default or non-prosecution but only contemplates disposal on merits after perusal of the record. Therefore, with respect,we find it difficult to agree with the suggestion in Ram Naresh Yadav case that if the appellant or his pleader is not present, the proper course would be to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution." 7. Therefore, with respect,we find it difficult to agree with the suggestion in Ram Naresh Yadav case that if the appellant or his pleader is not present, the proper course would be to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution." 7. In Dharampal's case (supra), the Apex Court relied on the verdict given in Bani Singh's case (Supra) and propounded the fol­lowing principles:- "When the accused does not appear, it is the bounden duty of the High Court to look into the records and the other materials on record, including the judgement of the trial court and thereafter, decide the appeal on merits which would be due compliance with Ss. 385 and 386 in disposing of criminal ap­peals. The Appellate Court must dispose of the judgement of the trial court even if the appellant or his counsel was not present at the time of hearing of the appeal." 8. The instant petition has been filed un­der section 482 of the Code, which has con­ferred a very wide power on the High Court which should be exercised in appropriate cases to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The inherent power under section 482 has no lim­its and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the ad­ministration of which alone the courts exists. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the im­pugned dismissal order has not only occa­sioned in causing miscarriage of justice but also amounts to abuse of the process of the court, therefore, it seems to be just and expe­dient to exercise inherent power under sec­tion 482 of the Code and to quash the dis­missal order dated 05.09.2008. 10. The petition is therefore allowed and the order dated 05.09.2008 is set aside. 11. The learned Sessions Judge, Ambed-karnagar is directed to hear and decide the Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2007 (Ghan Shyam v. State of U.P.) himself on merits. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail on the basis of the warrant issued by the Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Ambedkarnagar. If it is so, the applicant may move a bail application before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkarnagar and the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day. 13. 12. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is in jail on the basis of the warrant issued by the Chief Judi­cial Magistrate, Ambedkarnagar. If it is so, the applicant may move a bail application before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkarnagar and the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously, if possible on the same day. 13. Before parting with the judgement, I would like to add herewith that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambedkarnagar has committed callous carelessness in dis­missing the appeal in the absence of the ap­pellant. It appears that he had no legal knowledge as to how the criminal appeals are heard and disposed of. In this view of the matter, the Registrar General of the Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the con­cerned Officer for his guidance and he may be advised to be careful in future in consider­ing and disposing of criminal appeals. Petition allowed.